US censorship of Australian media coverage

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nommos Prime (Dogon)
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
94 replies · 10K views
pelastration said:
When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

I think this actually is a whole nother can o' worms. Their status as POW"S depends on whether they fit within the outlines that I listed above. They don't stop being POW's because of the type of war it is. The issue arises when you have a war that is not against a state, and in which an end is not neccesarily easily defined. POW's can be held until the war ceases without charges as they are not being held for criminal purposes but to prevent them from further fighting in the war. Normally once a halt to the war has been called they would be released/returned.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
selfAdjoint said:
The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

Uhhh..not exactly, again I suggest you look at past precedence.
 
Thanks, kat - you picked up nicely where I left off. I had a busy weekend.

Njorl - you have a good point. I don't think there is any precident (national or international) on that though. How exactly would you go about asserting Geneva Convention protection? The Red Cross has been into see these guys. Did anyone attempt to assert POW status then? Perhaps by showing their Geneva Convention ID cards...?

I don't think many of those guys have a leg to stand on when it comes to asserting status. To clarify my position though, I would much prefer that satus hearings/trials be held quickly.
 
More on ID cards. HERE is the complete text of the 3rd Geneva Convention (revised 1949). Article 17 states:
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
Clearly, this complicates any claim that the people at 'Gitmo should be afforded POW status.
 
Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".
Regular armed forces are members of a conventional military organisation serving a command structure which may or may not be recognised by the detaining power.

Abductees
LalaLalaLala
You are familiar with something called the English lanaguage, yes? "Abductee" is a noun. The plural form is "abductees".